Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Vote buying doesn't get any better than this! No, no... no redistribution of wealth here.

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110492/millions-of-american-taxpayers-make-money-off-federal-taxes?mod=taxes-advice_strategy

"Representing about 10 percent of all taxpayers, they receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income taxes and employment taxes."

So much for everyone paying "their fair share".

People need to get off the stupid "redistribution of wealth" and "spread the wealth around" crap, it just got annoying after we heard it from the Tea Party 10 million times.

The Green Git wrote:Vote buying doesn't get any better than this! No, no... no redistribution of wealth here.

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110492/millions-of-american-taxpayers-make-money-off-federal-taxes?mod=taxes-advice_strategy

"Representing about 10 percent of all taxpayers, they receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income taxes and employment taxes."

So much for everyone paying "their fair share".

I'm surprised the number isn't higher than that. You also need to remember those people control very little of the total amount of wealth. I don't know for a fact, but I would assume many of these households are getting an EITC, which by definition means they are working, therefore contributing to society.

I'm college educated, work hard every weekday, but I'd probably end up paying no net taxes except property taxes if I had two children, or possibly even one. I don't consider myself a deadbeat.

Yeah... you're grouping a lot of hard working people in there who aren't gaming the system, they just don't make enough to wind up owing anything after the deductions.

Tyyr wrote:Yeah... you're grouping a lot of hard working people in there who aren't gaming the system, they just don't make enough to wind up owing anything after the deductions.

In fact, I would imagine that if you limited that pool to households of 2 people or greater under the age of 25 that number might climb to 50%. They're working, they're just broke.

The Green Git wrote:
So much for everyone paying "their fair share".

People who receive negative tax credits are, in fact, working. In fact, they have to be working enough to file federal income taxes. If their fair share is thought of as a state of receipt (which is perfectly acceptable given the ambiguity of 'fair'), then not even your rhetoric is consistent with the information available.

Seriously, try harder.

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:People need to get off the stupid "redistribution of wealth" and "spread the wealth around" crap, it just got annoying after we heard it from the Tea Party 10 million times.

truth hurts.

I think the majority here are not paying because of the structure of the progressive income tax scheme in the U.S. You can make a discussion out of not agreeing with a progressive tax scheme, but these people aren't paying nothing because they're deadbeats, necessarily.

Undoubtedly you are correct that there are people gaming the system, but I doubt it is anywhere near 100%


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:People need to get off the stupid "redistribution of wealth" and "spread the wealth around" crap, it just got annoying after we heard it from the Tea Party 10 million times.

truth hurts.

But what he's saying isn't the truth. It isn't, " I disagree with progressive taxation", the statement was essentially " Everyone getting a tax return larger than what they pay in is a deadbeat, which is clearly not true, even given the inpercise definition of deadbeat.

Frazzled wrote:

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:People need to get off the stupid "redistribution of wealth" and "spread the wealth around" crap, it just got annoying after we heard it from the Tea Party 10 million times.

truth hurts.

The truth would involve acknowledging that all tax systems, even flat taxes, are redistributive as the rich necessarily carry more of the load than the poor.

So, rather than this, you would see your brother man starving and destitute?

Yeah, didn't think so.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:People need to get off the stupid "redistribution of wealth" and "spread the wealth around" crap, it just got annoying after we heard it from the Tea Party 10 million times.

truth hurts.

The truth would involve acknowledging that all tax systems, even flat taxes, are redistributive as the rich necessarily carry more of the load than the poor.

Actually, historically there were many historical regimes where the wealthy payed less than the poor and what passed for the middle class.
I'd also proffer are we talking $ in the door or % rate. When working in small busienss I grew disgusted at the millionaires who paid less taxes then I did as a lowly wage slave (both in amount and percentage now that I remember it).

The more you have, the easier it is to find a loophole, nes pas?

Frazzled wrote:
Actually, historically there were many historical regimes where the wealthy payed less than the poor and what passed for the middle class.

In that case the redistribution would be upward. I should have stated that all tax systems are redistributive unless all tax payers contribute an amount equal to the degree to which they benefit from the system.

Frazzled wrote:
I'd also proffer are we talking $ in the door or % rate. When working in small busienss I grew disgusted at the millionaires who paid less taxes then I did as a lowly wage slave (both in amount and percentage now that I remember it).

I was referring to gross dollars, and meant that particular comment to relate specifically to a flat tax system; riding the assumption that all proposed flat tax systems tend to eliminate all deductions. The sentence was unclear.

OP: I guarantee you that 80% of the places that you patronize are comprised completely of the people who require some sort of government aid to make a living. Without these people, the fabric of your country would fall apart completely.

Perhaps you should be arguing for the welfare of the common man, and not against it.

Mr Mystery wrote:The more you have, the easier it is to find a loophole, nes pas?

Indeed, at a certain level. Enough to make you join the Shuma fan club and start shouting Viva Zapata!

Mr Mystery wrote:So, rather than this, you would see your brother man starving and destitute?

Yeah, didn't think so.

That isn't my problem with it. I think you can make a valid point in criticizing progressive taxation, or even come up with reasons to support a passive social darwinist perspective. I may not agree with you, and indeed, may believe that you're a douchebag, but I can see the point. My father in law is a great example. Very, very, much into the concept of personal responsibility for everything, regardless of your circumstances. Completely against anything but minimal regulation, which he's never made clear, so I say no regulation. He can make a valid, reasoned appeal against progressive taxation and income redistribution. To be honest, my disagreements are more likely to be emotionally based than his. Do I disagree, and think he's a hypocrite in the bargain? Sure, but I respect the point of view, especially since he doesn't try to dovetail it with Christian religious belief. Its a flat out belief that you have to hack it, and if you don't, life sucks for you. That is honesty.
I'm most frustrated because when I tell him that I'm fortunate to have health insurance for his daughter and I, he says I'm not fortunate, because I'm working for it. Apparently people who work for it but don't get insurance must just not be working hard enough or something....

No, the problem is that deadbeats is a wrong description. As stated, the benefits mostly require you to actually work to receive them, with exceptions for certain other issues. The most well known I suppose is EITC, which can result in a substantial amount of money supplied by the government. Sure, I can look at it superficially and say " gosh, I wish I could get 4000 dollars from the government, I could so many Eldar titans for that!". I realize however, that I don't have two children to take care of, for instance, and that if I did I have health insurance.

Fraz, I have no doubt that there are many historical societies where the rich paid less than everyone else, but I don't know if I want to live in that society. Also, in many of these societies, I would argue that the definitions were different. For instance, a medieval lord got the lions share of the wealth, but he was who was obligated to go out and risk life and limb when the barbarians came knocking. In other words, his wealth was part of the machinery of state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:OP: I guarantee you that 80% of the places that you patronize are comprised completely of the people who require some sort of government aid to make a living. Without these people, the fabric of your country would fall apart completely.

Perhaps you should be arguing for the welfare of the common man, and not against it.

You don't know that, because he hasn't volunteered where he spends his time.

Grignard wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:OP: I guarantee you that 80% of the places that you patronize are comprised completely of the people who require some sort of government aid to make a living. Without these people, the fabric of your country would fall apart completely.

Perhaps you should be arguing for the welfare of the common man, and not against it.

You don't know that, because he hasn't volunteered where he spends his time.

Even if you've never been to a low-to-mid-end store of any kind (including restaraunts, retailers, grocery stores, etc.), it still has a progressive, tertiary effect on society when you completely remove the lowest rung of the ladder. People can't all be college graduates with jobs that actually afford them everything they need in life, or society would fail miserably.

Hyperbole serves a purpose. Demonstrating an obvious point doesn't.

Grignard wrote:
Fraz, I have no doubt that there are many historical societies where the rich paid less than everyone else, but I don't know if I want to live in that society. Also, in many of these societies, I would argue that the definitions were different. For instance, a medieval lord got the lions share of the wealth, but he was who was obligated to go out and risk life and limb when the barbarians came knocking. In other words, his wealth was part of the machinery of state.

Oh there's no disagreement from me here Grigy. I'd proffer thats antithetical to the fundamental concept of what of the American dream and directly in line with the regime of the oppressor.

I hate bankers too, everyone does. There's no point going on about it because they are clearly a protected group.

Kilkrazy wrote:I hate bankers too, everyone does. There's no point going on about it because they are clearly a protected group.

Its in the super secret World Constitution. We light churchills with rolled up $100 bills too, just like they say. (strikes one up) Mmmm nothing like the flavor of a freshly minted Benjamin...

Wow! I knew the USD was trending towards worthless but I didn't realise it was that weak!

Kilkrazy wrote:Wow! I knew the USD was trending towards worthless but I didn't realise it was that weak!

Well we tried Pounds Sterling but for some reason they reminded too many people of haggis.

You don't want to anger the haggis.

Tyyr wrote:Yeah... you're grouping a lot of hard working people in there who aren't gaming the system, they just don't make enough to wind up owing anything after the deductions.

Did you read the article? There are a net 47% of Americans that don't pay taxes. This article doesn't refer to them, as bad as they are.

This 15 percent get MORE back from the system than they pay in. Yes, actual cash dollars that they make off the system.

I am at a loss to understand how a tax system is to work which taxes poor people for everything and taxes rich people for nothing.

Kilkrazy wrote:I am at a loss to understand how a tax system is to work which taxes poor people for everything and taxes rich people for nothing.

Hey if its good enough for Pre-Revolution France it good enough for YOU! That reminds me, are th Obamas still on vacation?

It wasn't good enough for pre-revolution France. That is why they had a revolution. Everyone rich was chased out of the country or had their heads chopped off.

Kilkrazy wrote:It wasn't good enough for pre-revolution France. That is why they had a revolution. Everyone rich was chased out of the country or had their heads chopped off.

Killkrazy...sacrasm alert FAIL!

Time for some learning more gooder!

The Green Git wrote:
Did you read the article? There are a net 47% of Americans that don't pay taxes. This article doesn't refer to them, as bad as they are.

The article does refer to them, actually. It even notes that stating that they do not pay taxes is false, as the 47% in fact pays payroll taxes.

The Green Git wrote:
This 15 percent get MORE back from the system than they pay in. Yes, actual cash dollars that they make off the system.

15 million, not 15%.

The Green Git wrote:

Tyyr wrote:Yeah... you're grouping a lot of hard working people in there who aren't gaming the system, they just don't make enough to wind up owing anything after the deductions.

Did you read the article? There are a net 47% of Americans that don't pay taxes. This article doesn't refer to them, as bad as they are.

Ah yes, dragging that old argument out again. I'm such a horrible person, only making six grand a year. There's undoubtedly a special place in hell reserved for me, right next to the child molesters and people who talk in the theater.